Questions on Shaboss's daf (103)
Here are some questions that were vexing me from Shabbos's daf.
1. R' Yehuda and his Rebbi agree that Shem Mishimon is Chayav, but argue about Sh"Sh from Shashbatzar. What possible reason should there be to distinguish between two different letters (shtei shemos) that make up a small word and two similar letters (shem echad) that make up a small word?
2. The gemarah asks (on Amud Beis) from the braisa of U'kesavtam, referring to the halachos of writing a mezuzah or tefilin, to question why Shem from Shimon would be chayav, since a mem peshutah used in place of a mem stumah is pasul for a mezuzah or tefilin. What do the halachos of Csivas STA"M have to do with the melacha of Cosev on Shabbos. Why must your cesivah on Shabbos be considered valid safrus to qualify as a melacha of cosev?
3. At the end of the daf the gemarah proves that a tanna holds a mem stumah used in place of a mem pshutah is kosher for mezuzah or tefilin, because the drasha that introduces Nisuch Hamaim on Succos uses a mem stumah as the beginning of the word Mayim. This question doesn't need to be vocalized it is so hard to swallow, but here goes. Its a drasha, using extra letters in the pasukim, so why should the drasha have to conform to hilchos STA"M in order to be valid?
posted by Anonymous @ 9:44 AM
4 Comments:
Good questions. I have some initial thoughts on the first question but not a complete answer (yet). If I think of anything I'll post more.
3. This question bothered me when I learned the gemara but when I read your question I thought of the following suggestion. Maybe the gemara had a hava amina that the two mems are two different letters that just happen to sound the same. If that's all they are then if you write shin and mem pasuach then you haven't written a word. It would be like if you intended to write the word av (father) and you wrote aleph-vav. Sure it sounds the same but vav and veis are not the same letter. (I realize the comparison isn't great because here the only difference is that one is used at the end of the word and one in the middle. It could be that's the maskana but in the h"a the gemara thought that despite that they are still considered two different letters.) The gemara then proves from hilchos stam that they are the same letter.
One problem with this explanation is that the gemara then asks that would only prove that if you make a pasuach sasum that it's kasher but not vice versa. According to my explanation the two should be the same? It could be that this question of the gemara is only on hilchos safrus. We've now completed our proof that for kesiva on Shabbos you'll be chayav even if you write a pasuach in place of a sasum or vice versa. However, that doesn't neccessarily mean that it will be kasher for safrus.
This does not answer your second question though. That question bothered me also on 104b where the gemara is talking about ksav al gabei ksav and brings a proof from hilchos safrus again.
What do you think?
My initial thoughts were to base it on the Rashash on the Rashi on the Mishna also but I really didn't get much further than that. I assumed that R' Yehuda and his rebbe both agree that if you write a two letter word you're chayav but their only machlokes is if you intended to write a longer word. For some reason they have a machlokes in that case. A word with two of the same letters is obviously considered inferior but I just couldn't come up with a good reason. Your reason is far better than anything I came up with but I'm still not crazy about it.
On a side topic, I just went to look up the halacha in the Mishna Brura and was surprised that there wasn't anything in the Shulchan Aruch from our gemara and very little on kesiva in genera. The Mishna Brura in siman 340 s"k 22 spends almost an entire page on hilchos ksiva with the following introduction: "I'll explain here from the Gemara and poskim the main points of hilchos kosev and mocheik where there is a chiyuv chatas and where there is an isure d'rabonnon b/c the Shulchan Aruch was very succint about it." Do you have any idea why the Shulchan Aruch didn't write much? It's clear that it's halacha l'maase!
That pshat is really hard for me to understand. Tosafos must have said at least 5 times so far in this maseches that you don't need it to be exactly like it was in the mishkan except by hotzaa. By kesiva you're chayav even if you write on a piece of paper and maybe even if you write in a different language. It just seems amazing that two letters should be inferior for some reason. In my humble understanding, I like your pshat better ;-).
I heard an interesting pshat today (from Rabbi Elefant's daf yomi shiur on ouradio.org) regarding tying garbage bags on shabbos. The Debetziner Rav says that since a "knot", by definition, is something which can be tied and untied, a knot on a garbage bag is not really a "knot" since it is never intended to be opened once you tie it. Thus, you can make such a tying on shabbos since a tying which you intend to last forever does not fall within the definition of a knot. The Maharil Diskin offers a similar explanation as to how a string was tied around the Seir Hamishtaleach on Yom Kippur. Why should this be allowed - isn't tying a knot assur? He explains that since the knot is intended to last forever - i.e. once the seir is pushed off the mountain, he is never heard from again - it is permissible to make such a knot.
Post a Comment
<< Home